Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:31, 25 May 2007

Attachment Therapy

view edit delete watch
Filed: 19:12, May 22 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• shotwell (talk · contribs)
• Fainites (talk · contribs)
• StokerAce (talk · contribs) This template must be substituted.
• Jean Mercer (talk · contribs) This template must be substituted.
• Maypole (talk · contribs) This template must be substituted.
• Sarner (talk · contribs) This template must be substituted.
• DPeterson (talk · contribs)
• RalphLender (talk · contribs)
• JonesRD (talk · contribs)
• MarkWood (talk · contribs)
• SamDavidson (talk · contribs)
• JohnsonRon (talk · contribs)
• FatherTree (talk · contribs) This template must be substituted.

Articles involved

• Attachment Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Advocates for Children in Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Several old mediation cabal attempts that failed: , ,

These were successful in that resolution was finally reached on a consensus statement and the cases closed. RalphLender 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The record clearly shows they all failed. Larry Sarner 06:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(Guys, guys! Please! You're not supposed to argue on the mediation referral page. Fainites 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

• Very lengthy talk page discussions at Talk:Attachment Therapy, Talk:Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy.

Issues to be mediated

• What degree of prominence should we give to the views of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy on Attachment Therapy?
• Is it appropriate to say (in Advocates for Children in Therapy) that certain groups "have not taken positions on ACT's work, nor is there any evidence that those groups use ACT's materials; although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups"?
• Should we say that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) is "grounded in the works of Bowlby" without attributing this assertion to the researcher who made it?
• How should we negotiate the ambiguity of the definition of "attachment therapy"?
• Should the Advocates for Children in Therapy article say the leaders are unlicensed mental health practitioners when there is no evidence that they are licensed?
• Is it appropriate to claim there are 'very few' practitioners of attachment therapy on the basis of a list of organisations that have made position statements against it?
• Should we write that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay are "effective and evidence based" without attributing these assertion to the researchers who have made them?
• How should we handle the question of whether or not DDP satisfies various practice guidelines?
• How should we present the conclusions of the recent Craven and Lee paper?
• How should we present the conclusions of the reply to letters by Chaffin et al.?
• There are several articles, not listed above, that contain some of the assertions named above about DDP (John Bowlby, Adoption, etc..). Which of these articles should mention DDP and what should they say with respect to efficacy and evidence-base?
• Should the various levels of evidentiary basis be defined briefly or at least alluded to, rather than taking the outmoded line that material is either evidence-based, or not?

Additional issues to be mediated

• Conflicts of interest and financial involvements regarding User:Mercer User:Jean Mercer and User:Sarner, leaders of ACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphLender (talk • contribs) Corrected to match correct user. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Citations to materials by Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman and contributions by Dr. Becker-Weidman to these pages. Dr. Becker-Weidman runs a commercial therapy practice specializing in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (http://www.center4familydevelop.com/), and any reliance on his work needs to take into account his financial interests in this therapy. StokerAce 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Is it appropriate alter a quotation from one source by a few words for the purpose of either attaching another source to it, or to alter the meaning of the quotation? Fainites 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• When issues have been previously mediated and resolved can the same/similiar group of individuals raise the same set of issues again? See: ], ], ], ] RalphLender 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• How to mediate when one editor of the group (Fainites, Sarner, Mercer, FatherTree, Shotwell, StokerAce, & Maypole) involved user:FatherTree makes false accusations, "He isn't? Doesn't he (referring to Dr. Becker-Weidman) go by the name DPeterson here? FatherTree 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)" ] knowingly ] ].
• What is the Wiki meaning of "consensus" and can it be used to irrevocably lock in demonstrable inaccuracies. Larry Sarner 06:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• What weight and influce do single-purpose accounts (sometimes called meat puppets) have in this process? DPeterson 12:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Such as those identified on the RfC RalphLender 13:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• When editors work in concert, communicating with each other regarding approahes and strategies, how is that to be viewed and what weight should then be given to each individual member of such a group? RalphLender 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Should the use of direct quotations, other citations, and references (e.g. in press publications) follow the criteria of print publications, for example APA style?Jean Mercer 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• How much weight should be given to the Chaffin Task Force article? MarkWood 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• How much weight should be given to the book by Prior which is not an empirical study? MarkWood 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• How to address and consider the contributions of users who are largely single-purpose accounts? MarkWood 14:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• How to address the vested interest and finanacial conflict of interest presented by the leader of ACT here ( Sarner & Jean Mercer)? MarkWood 14:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. shotwell 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Agree. StokerAce 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree. Jean Mercer 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Agree Fainites 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Agree FatherTree 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Agree Maypole 06:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Agree. Larry Sarner 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Agree. RalphLender 13:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
9. agreeMarkWood 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Agree JohnsonRon 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Agree DPeterson 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.

• Mediation Committee pending cases